Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 442 indian penal code in (Represented By The Learned Senior App) vs Under Section 313 Of Cr.P.C on 24 August, 2021Matching Fragments
18 CC 13398 of 2015
22. It is no doubt true that PW4 is an eyewitness to the incident. It is no doubt true that he has deposed specifically that accused did trespass inside the house property of PW1 and committed the aforementioned offences. But still he did not depose as to how many of them have entered their house premises and in what way the incident went up to an extent of assault. Be that as it may be, so far as accusation as to the offence punishable under section 448 of IPC is concerned, it is the mandate of section 448 of IPC that if any person commits house trespass shall be punished and what is house trespass has been described in section 442 of IPC. Section 442 of IPC makes it clear that if somebody enters into or remain in any building, tent or vessel, house for home dwelling or any building used for the purpose of worship or a place to have the custody upon the property and if any act of entering inside such place 19 CC 13398 of 2015 house etc, is proved, then it suffices to say that it constitutes an offence called house trespass. For the purpose of clarity, both section 442 of IPC and section 448 of IPC are extracted herein below; Section 442 in The Indian Penal Code.
24. Suffice it to say that none of the witnesses has deposed regarding the entry of accused inside the house of PW1. One of the important and foremost ingredient of section 442 of IPC is the entry of accused. As aforementioned none of the prosecution 22 CC 13398 of 2015 witnesses has deposed about the entry of accused inside the house premises of PW1. Moreover it is not the case of the prosecution that other independent witnesses are available to depose regarding the entry of accused inside the house of PW1 and also as to their exit. Therefore, though the learned advocate appearing for accused has argued and has submitted written arguments contending that the above witnesses, who are eyewitnesses as per the prosecution are interested witnesses and they are closely related etc, even if the said aspects are overlooked or ignored, still the prosecution is expected to stand on its own feet and it should have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the evidence of PW4 for the foregoing reasons appears to be incomplete and thus the question aforementioned is hereby answered in the Negative. 23 CC 13398 of 2015